Humans ; Noise, Occupational ; Occupational Exposure

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the sound pressure levels of selected traffic enforcer sites in the City of Manila.

METHODOLOGY: A Brüel & Kjær Integrating Sound Level Meter type 2225 was used to measure sound pressure levels in dB(A) to estimate personal noise exposure of traffic enforcers designated at Quezon Boulevard near Quiapo Church and Recto - Rizal Avenue on a weekday and a weekend. Graphs were generated while appropriate measures were calculated for the noise exposure levels. The mean exposure levels were compared with the Philippine Occupational Safety and Health standards by computing the corresponding permissible exposure limit for each work shift using the Equal Energy Principle.17

RESULTS: Noise exposure levels at Quezon Boulevard ranged from 75.0 dB(A) to 91.5 dB(A) with mean noise exposure level of 84.3 ± 3.7 dB(A) and 82.5 ± 2.6 dB(A) for the weekday AM and PM shift, respectively. The mean noise exposure level at Quezon Boulevard for the weekend AM shift was 82.4 ± 2.6, whereas 80.4 ± 2.8 for the PM shift. The noise exposure levels at Recto - Rizal Avenue ranged from 81.5 dB(A) to 99.3 dB(A) with mean noise exposure level of 86.7 ± 2.6 dB(A) and 86.0 ± 2.1 dB(A) for the weekday AM and PM shift, respectively. The mean noise exposure level at Recto - Rizal Avenue for the weekend AM shift was 86.7 ± 2.3, whereas 89.0 ± 4.0 for the PM shift.

CONCLUSION: The study showed that traffic enforcers designated at Quezon Boulevard and Recto - Rizal Avenue are exposed to noise levels that do not exceed the Philippine Occupational Safety and Health standards.

Introduction: Automotive workers are exposed to high level of noise as part of their daily work routine. Determining the predictors of knowledge, attitude and practice of noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) among automotive is important because it may help prevent a serious irreversible disease known as noise induced hearing loss. Methods: A cross sectional study in an automotive plant in Shah Alam, Selangor was conducted from January 2015 to May 2015 among 550 workers with response rate of 83%. Respondents were workers from the operational divisions, selected based on simple random sampling using validated, published (1) and reliable self-administered questionnaire that focused on knowledge, attitude and practice towards NIHL. Results: Logistic Regression was used to determine predictors and the predictors for satisfactory knowledge on noise induced hearing loss were perceived noise exposure as harmful noise (AOR=0.54, 95%CI = 1.02 - 3.41), years in service for more than 10 years (AOR=2.79, 95%CI = 1.71 – 4.56) and had received training on safety (AOR=1.94, 95%CI = 1.12 – 3.36). For satisfactory attitude the predictors were perceived noise exposure as harmful noise (AOR=3.79, 95%CI = 2.36 – 6.10), years in service for more than 10 years (AOR=0.56, 95%CI = 0.34 – 0.83) and tertiary level of education (AOR=3.61, 95%CI = 1.67 - 7.81). As for satisfactory practice the predictors were more than 10 years in service (AOR=2.16, 95%CI = 1.24 – 3.75) and had received training on safety (AOR=1.94, 95%CI = 1.26 – 2.99). Conclusions: The results from this study may be used to set appropriate measures and identify workers who are at risk of developing noise induced hearing loss.
Hearing Loss ; Noise, Occupational

Dental Offices ; Hospitals ; Noise, Occupational

According to the research on the pathogenesis of the hidden hearing loss in recent years, the occurrence of the hidden hearing loss is earlier than the permanent hearing threshold shift. This paper reviews the risk factors of hidden hearing loss, the pathogenesis of noise-induced hidden hearing loss, and the detection methods of hidden hearing loss. To explore the significance of hidden hearing loss in occupational health surveillance, and to provide reference for hearing protection of workers exposed to noise and hearing loss early in the future.
Hearing ; Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced ; Humans ; Noise, Occupational ; Occupational Diseases ; Occupational Exposure ; Occupational Health

Non-steady state noise has become the main type of workplace noise. Compared with steady state noise, non-steady state noise may cause more serious hearing loss. This paper reviews the new situation of occupational hearing loss caused by non-steady state noise exposure, the overview of international noise exposure assessment standards and new challenges, and the new evidence of non-steady state noise induced hearing loss, so as to provide the basis for the future research of non-steady state noise induced hearing loss.
Auditory Threshold ; Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced ; Humans ; Noise ; Noise, Occupational/adverse effects* ; Occupational Diseases/epidemiology*

INTRODUCTION: Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) attributed to occupational noise exposure is one of the most common causes of permanent hearing impairment. In the Philippines, road traffic remains the biggest source of noise. The authors aimed to determine the prevalence of NIHL among traffic enforcers in Quezon City and quantify their occupational noise exposure levels. METHODS: Traffic enforcers were recruited via convenience sampling and screened using a questionnaire and otoscopic examination. Participants underwent pure tone audiometry and those found to have hearing loss were classified as “indicative” or “suspected” NIHL. Audiometric measurements of noise levels in areas where the traffic enforcers were assigned were taken using a calibrated smartphone application. RESULTS: “Indicative of NIHL” was highest in the 41 to 50-year age group and “suspected NIHL” was highest in the 31 to 40-year age group. “Indicative of NIHL” was highest among those working for 1 to 5 and 11 to 15 years in the right ear (25%) and 11 to 15 years in the left ear (30%). “Suspected NIHL” was highest among those working for 6 to 10 years. The average noise levels from the different areas measured at different times ranged from 79.0 to 82.5 dB. CONCLUSION “Indicative of NIHL” is more prevalent in the older age group while “suspected NIHL” is more prevalent in the middle age group. The prevalence of “indicative of NIHL” is highest among those in service for 1 to 5 and 11 to 15 years while “suspected NIHL” is highest among those in the service for 6 to 10 years. The average noise level measurements were within the safe values suggested by WHO.
Audiometry, Pure-Tone ; Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced ; Noise, Occupational

Humans ; Noise, Occupational ; Normal Distribution ; Textiles

BACKGROUNDTask-based measurement (TBM) is a method to assess the eight-hour A-weighted equivalent noise exposure level (L(Aeq.8h)) besides dosimeter. TBM can be better used in factories by non-professional workers and staffs. However, it is still not clear if TBM is equal or similar with dosimeter for L(Aeq.8h) measurement in general. This study considered the measurement with dosimeter as real personal noise exposure level (PNEL) and assessed the accuracy of TBM by comparing the consistencies of TBM and dosimeter in L(Aeq.8h) measurement.

METHODSThe study was conducted in one automobile firm among 387 workers who are exposed to unstable noise. Dosimeters and TBM were used to compare the two strategies and assess the degree of agreement and causes of disagreement. Worker's PNEL was measured via TBM for noise; the real PNEL was also recorded. The TBM for noise was computed with task/position noise levels measured via sound level meter and workers' exposure information collected via working diary forms (WDF) filled by participants themselves. Full-shift noise exposure measurement via personal noise dosimeters were taken as the real PNEL. General linear model (GLM) was built to analyze the accuracy of TBM for noise and the source of difference between TBM for noise and real PNEL.

RESULTSThe L(Aeq.8h) with TBM were slightly higher than the real PNELs, except the electricians. Differences of the two values had statistical significance in stamping workers (P < 0.001), assembly workers (P = 0.015) and welding workers (P = 0.001). The correlation coefficient of L(Aeq.8h) with TBM and real PNELs was 0.841. Differences of the two results were mainly affected by real PNEL (F = 11.27, P = 0.001); and work groups (F = 3.11, P < 0.001) divided by jobs and workshops were also independent factors. PNEL of workers with fixed task/position ((86.53 ± 8.82) dB(A)) was higher than those without ((75.76 ± 9.92) dB(A)) (t = 8.84, P < 0.01). Whether workers had fixed task/position was another factor on the accuracy of TBM for noise (F = 4.36, P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONTBM for noise has acceptable accuracy on workers' PNEL measurement. The accuracy is affected by job categories, workshops and variability of task/position. TBM for noise can yield a relatively conservative result of worker's PNEL in most cases, so it can be used to measure and assess workers' real PNEL.

Algorithms ; Noise, Occupational ; Numerical Analysis, Computer-Assisted